Eucharist...What am I missing?


#1

I’m putting together my “Biblical Toolbag” for defense of the Eucharist, and I’m wondering what I’m missing. I thought I’d ask the pros, and see where I’m lacking:
Melchizedek:

  1. King of Salem (Genesis 14:18-20; Psalms 110:4)
  2. A priest and type of Christ (Hebrews 5:6,10;6:20;7:1-21)
    Offered bread and wine as a sacrifice to God. So revered that Abraham gave him a tithe offering. Christ is a priest in the order Melchizedek - He offers Himself as bread and wine, the ultimate sacrifice before God. Melchizedek was the King of Salem (from"Shalom", or “Peace”), prefiguring the true Prince of Peace. Later, Salem became Jerusalem, where Christ instituted His reign. Prophetically, Bethlahem comes from the Hebrew “House of Bread”, which is home to Christ.

Passover:

  1. Institution of
    (Exodus 12:3-49;23:15-18;34:18; Leviticus 23:4-8; Numbers 9:2-5,)
  2. The lamb killed by Levites, for those who were ceremonially unclean (2 Chronicles 30:17;35:3-11; Ezra 6:20)
  3. Strangers authorized to celebrate (Exodus 12:48,49; Numbers 9:14) - prefigures Baptism as a requirement to partake in Eucharist
  4. Observed at the place designated by God (Deuteronomy 16:5-7)
  5. Observed with unleavened bread (no yeast) (Exodus 12:8,15-20;13:3,6;23:15; Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 9:11;)
  6. Penalty for neglecting to observe (Numbers 9:13)
  7. Re-instituted by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 45:21-24)
  8. Observed by Jesus (Matthew 26:17-20; Luke 22:15; John 2:13,23;)
  9. Jesus in the temple courtyard at the time of (Luke 2:41-50)
  10. Jesus crucified at the time of (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1,2; John 18:28)
  11. The lamb of, a type of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7)
  12. The Eucharist ordained at (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-20)
  13. Prisoner released at, by the Romans (Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; Luke 23:16,17; John 18:39)
  14. Peter imprisoned at the time of (Acts 12:3)
  15. Christ called “our Passover,” (1 Corinthians 5:7)

In order to have been ‘passed over’, you had to eat the lamb. Passover was commanded to be celebrated forever, which is done through the fulfillment of the Eucharist. Christians who do not celebrate Passover (in this way or the old way) are disobeying the commands of God, and have never eaten the Lamb (thus have no biblical right to believe they will be “passed over”).


#2

Manna:

  1. General scriptures concerning (Exodus 16:4-35; Numbers 11:6-10; Deuteronomy 8:3,16; Joshua 5:12; Nehemiah 9)
  2. Preserved in the ark of the covenant (Exodus 16:33; Hebrews 9:4)
  3. Pre-figuring Christ ( John 6:48-51; 1 Corinthians 10:3; Revelations 2:17)

Christ is the true “Bread which comes down from heaven”, the “spiritual food” from which we are all to eat. As OT biblical types can only become greater in the NT, it would make no sense for the bread and wine to be “only symbolic”.

Eucharist:

  1. General scriptures concerning institution (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 13:26;22:19,20; John)
  2. Christ recognized in the Eucharist (Luke 24:30-31)
  3. A “Pure Offering” sacrifice prophesied (Malachi 1:11)
  4. Christ, our Sacrifice (Ephesians 5:2)
  5. Christ, eternally present before God as a sacrifice (Revelation 5:5-7; Revelation 5:11-13)

The Eucharist is a partaking of and a participation in the eternal sacrifice of Christ, outside of time, but conjoined with time. Christ is ever-present before the Father as our Paschal Lamb, and He allows us to be partakers of His sacrifice.

Ok. What did I miss, and what can I explain more clearly? Constructive criticism is very welcome!
RyanL


#3

I did not see the arguments about if we were to take it symbolically, eating someone symbolically means to harm them. Personally, I found this very compelling.

I won’t redo what was done so well, but all the references and arguments can be found in CA catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

God Bless,
Maria


#4

Good point!

**Not Figurative (“let Scripture interpret Scripture”):
**Micah 3:3Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.

From CA: “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense”

The Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura forces interpretation based on what else the Bible has to say about a certain topic. No other interpretation is allowed, as you cannot “read into” Scripture simply what you want to read. Under this doctrine, there is no other interpretation possible than the above quote.

Certainly, there is a symbolic aspect to the Eucharist. There is no reason, however, to assume that the symbolic aspect is either the main or only purpose behind the Eucharist. With over three dozen Aramaic words to mean “symbolizes” or “represents”, as well as several words to choose from in Greek, it is significant that our Lord chose NONE of these words to express Himself. There is precious little reason to believe that symbolism is what Christ meant.

Rather, a Clintonian distinction is attempted by the non-believing as to what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

What else have I missed?
RyanL


#5

RyanL,

You have put together an impressive amount of evidence. Let me add to it a bit. I didn’t see I Corinthians 11:23-32, but especially verses 27 and 29 regarding it not being symbolic.

Also, I believe that in the original Passover what caused the people to be spared was the blood on the doorways (Exodus 12:13, 23). I don’t see where it says that eating of the lamb was the criterion for being spared.

  • Liberian

#6

[quote=Liberian]Also, I believe that in the original Passover what caused the people to be spared was the blood on the doorways (Exodus 12:13, 23). I don’t see where it says that eating of the lamb was the criterion for being spared.
[/quote]

You are correct about 1 Cor 11 - I can’t believe I didn’t include it!

As for the Passover, eating was part of the ritual. If you used a lame lamb for sacrifice -> invalid. If you used an old lamb for sacrifice -> invalid. If you killed the lamb in the morning -> invalid. If you struck the blood on the doormat only -> invalid. If you didn’t eat the flesh of the lamb -> invalid. If you start with Exodus 12:3 and work forward, the instructions are pretty clear. If you go outside of the instructions, and hope that your “intent” will get you through, you are relying on a promise God never made.

Do you agree?
RyanL


#7

You didn’t post the whole book of Revelations. :slight_smile: It’s all about the Mass you know. I am sure you have read the “lambs supper.”


#8

[quote=thessalonian]You didn’t post the whole book of Revelations. :slight_smile: It’s all about the Mass you know. I am sure you have read the “lambs supper.”
[/quote]

You’re entirely correct (as usual) - as Scott Hahn says, “the Liturgy is the key to understanding Revelations, and Revelations is the key to understanding the Liturgy” (…slightly paraphrased).

I’m trying to stick with explicit teachings, however, that could not possibly have any other meaning. These scriptures, of course, should be prefaced with an understanding of “Biblical Typology”, and how the NT fulfillment can never be less than the OT shadow.

Any one else?
RyanL


#9

Scott Hann’s book, “The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth” (available for $13.57 at Amazon)is one of the most AMAZING books I have ever read (and I’ve read a LOT). It ties the Mass in with the Old Testament AND Revelation in ways that I had never heard of (and Eucharistic theology is a particular interest of mine, and I have studied it extensively). HIGHLY recommended!


#10

Ryan, here’s a link to another thread that will tie is pretty well with your Eucharistic discussion.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=40172
Pax tecum,


#11

A few quotes from Dave Armstrong’s book “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” :

“Much of the objection to this doctrine seems to arise out of a pitting of matter against spirit, or, more specifically, an a priori hostility toward the idea that grace can be conveyed through matter (which notion is the basis of sacramentalism). This is exceedingly curious, since precisely this concept is fundamental to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus. If God did not take on matter and human flesh, no one would have been saved.”

As you already said, “If the Eucharist were merely commemorative bread and wine, instead of being superior, it would really be inferior to the manna; for the manna was supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food, while bread and wine are a natural earthly food.”

“It sometimes happened, indeed, that our Savior was misunderstood by His hearers. On such occasions He always took care to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by stating His meaning in simpler language [Nicodemus - John 3:1-15; leaven of the Pharisees - Matt. 16:5-12]”

“Furthermore, according to the Greek in St. John’s account, Jesus, after the skeptical query by the Jews (6:53), actually switches terms for “eat.” At first John’s Greek word (nine times in John 6:23-53) is phago, a generic term for eat, used accordingly (literally) throughout the New Testament. But in John 6:54-58 the word used (four times) is the more graphic and particular trogo, which means literally “gnaws” or “chews,” as any Greek lexicon (such as Kittel or Thayer) will confirm. Trogo occurs only in this passage and in Matthew 24:38 and John 13:18. In those two verses, it conveys literal eating, and there are strong contextual, exegetical, and linguistic reasons to believe that it is intended literally in John 6 as well.”

I thoroughly enjoyed Armstrong’s book :thumbsup:

Peace,
Michael


#12

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned…
In 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, St. Paul provides a comparison between the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christians, “the cup we bless…the blood of Christ” and “the bread we break…the body of Chirst,” and the pagan sacrifices to idols (demons).


#13

[quote=RyanL]As for the Passover, eating was part of the ritual. If you used a lame lamb for sacrifice -> invalid. If you used an old lamb for sacrifice -> invalid. If you killed the lamb in the morning -> invalid. If you struck the blood on the doormat only -> invalid. If you didn’t eat the flesh of the lamb -> invalid. If you start with Exodus 12:3 and work forward, the instructions are pretty clear. If you go outside of the instructions, and hope that your “intent” will get you through, you are relying on a promise God never made.

Do you agree?
RyanL
[/quote]

RyanL,

Yes, I agree, but there is some part of me that is uncomfortable with it. Not with the statement that eating the flesh of the Son of Man is necessary for salvation, nor with the statement that eating the lamb was a necessary part of the original Passover ritual, but with using the bit about eating the Passover lamb as a defense of the Eucharist. In a later post you say you are trying to stick with things that are explicit, and I’m uncomfortable with whether or not the eating of the Passover lamb is explicitly given as a condition of being saved from the Angel of Death on the first Passover. Possibly I have a higher standard of explicitness than most people. By all means include it in your list of defenses of the Eucharist, but if somebody questions it you should have your answers ready.

  • Liberian

#14

Copying and pasting a *new *parallel (to me, anyway) from CM’s thread - Judges 19:

[quote=Bible Reader]The Nativity is a Eucharist picture. In “Bethlehem” (Hebrew meaning “The House of Bread”), instead of finding bread being served on a serving dish we see Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes like a cadaver, lying in a manger, a “serving dish” for animals. So, instead of seeing bread on a serving dish, we see the actual body of [resurected] Jesus on a serving dish! – a Real Presence affirmation!

Paul at 2 Corinthians 5:21 functionally gives Jesus the title of “Him-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.” He was referring to the fact that at many places in the Bible Jesus is symbolized with sin symbols, to show that even though He was sinless, in offering Himself as a sacrifice to suffer and die to pay the penalty exacted by God’s Own perfect justice for our sinfulness He ended up being treated as though He were sin, itself. So, in the Book of Numbers, bloodied Jesus on the cross is symbolized by the “red” metal bronze serpent on a pole. In John 3 Jesus compares Himself to the bronze serpent.

One of the other places in the Bible where a sin symbol represents Jesus is Judges 19. In the Bible, women normally represent sinning “mankind-in-need-of-salvation.”

In Judges 19, a Levite retrieves his concubine from her birthplace in Bethlehem, the “House of Bread.” She rides on an *** into Jerusalem, like Christ did at the time of His messianic entry. Later, in the house of an “old man,” a typical God-the-Father symbol, while they are supping on bread and wine, the Levite (the “priestly” tribe, note well) sacrifices the concubine, to save those inside the old man’s house, by shoving her out the door into the custody of a band of sex-crazed bisexuals, who rape the concubine to death. The concubine dies with her “hands” – a Jesus symbol – on the “door” – another Jesus symbol. The Levite then takes her actual body, cuts it into pieces, and distributes it to Israel.

There is no doubt that the concubine is a typical Old Testament “sin” symbol for Christ, like the bronze serpent.

She is from Bethlehem. She rides an *** into Jerusalem. She is sacrificed to save the others in God’s house. She has “door hands,” a double affirmation that she symbolizes Jesus. There is no doubt.

She is sacrificed while they are eating bread and wine, and then cut into pieces like food and distributed to the people of Israel like Communion, because this frightful act is being placed alongside the consumption of bread and wine to tell us, “A = B. They are the same thing. Eating the bread and wine = the sacrifice and reception of the actual body of the sacrificed one from Bethlehem.”
[/quote]

Thanks for the help, CM!


#15

[quote=RyanL]Good point!

**Not Figurative (“let Scripture interpret Scripture”):
**Micah 3:3Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.

The Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura forces interpretation based on what else the Bible has to say about a certain topic. No other interpretation is allowed, as you cannot “read into” Scripture simply what you want to read. Under this doctrine, there is no other interpretation possible than the above quote.

Certainly, there is a symbolic aspect to the Eucharist. There is no reason, however, to assume that the symbolic aspect is either the main or only purpose behind the Eucharist. With over three dozen Aramaic words to mean “symbolizes” or “represents”, as well as several words to choose from in Greek, it is significant that our Lord chose NONE of these words to express Himself. There is precious little reason to believe that symbolism is what Christ meant.

Rather, a Clintonian distinction is attempted by the non-believing as to what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

What else have I missed?
RyanL
[/quote]

RyanL:

“Clintonian distinction” - I like that!

Jorge. :thumbsup:


#16

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but I need some help in another forum. Can anyone here help me? I’ve been around and around with this poster and can’t get any where.

The discussion is going like this: (the “You” is referring to me, a Catholic. The “me” refers to a non-Catholic view.)

Dear Betty:

you: When Jesus said “the Spirit gives life. The flesh profits nothing.”, he meant that the Holy Spirit will reveal to us how bread and wine will be his body and blood.

Me: I simply believe what he said. His Spirit gives life, not flesh.
Jesus’ body and blood are real in the Spirit.
Jesus said the he and the Father give us’’ the true’’ bread from heaven.
Not from man, nor made forms.

you: Our weak human minds cannot begin to understand it. Our flesh is useless in comprehending such a possibility. Until the Holy Spirit gives one an understanding of it, it is best to just believe that with God all things are possible.

me: However the teaching that God has given us, is written upon our heart and minds, to keep us from violating his command: not to make a form shape or image, and ultimately an idol that represents our living God. He that is in us, is, greater than the world.

me: “It IS idolatrous to make from our hands, the ‘actual body’ of God into form.”

you:
Man does not do it. God does.
me: Not taking responsibility for what we place faith in, is imho turning a blind eye to what we do.
The word teaches us that we will know God because he has given us his Spirit. That God gives us, makes us alive with his Son. HE has risen to be testfied as the TRUE bread-the victor in us.

you: If God wants to give us his body and blood and tells us that the bread and wine become his body and blood, then who are we to say that God can’t do it?

me: Jesus’ body was shed for us, at the cross. This body died and rose a glorified body in order to live in us:

Without his death: no life–no body and blood–no real true bread and real drink testified in the Spirit to OUR spirit.
Without his Spirit actaully present real alive sufficient complete IN fullness in us-no covering, for holiness righteousness and redemption.

His Spirit in us is everything–’’‘we do not add’’’ to what: he is.

me: "The Spirit testifies the actaul presence of Jesus IN us. Jesus said I and my Father give you the true bread from heaven."
you: It is not a matter of one or the other. It is both.

me: Yes–The Father and Son are one. Their presence is REAL-giving us the true bread, Jesus, in us through the HOLY Spirit. Not through another bread form.

you: Jesus in us through the Spirit and Jesus in us through the bread and wine that is his body and blood. Who are we to question how God wants to come to us?

me: I do not believe I am questioning God.
We come ‘to him’ through faith that he is the living true bread from heaven, given to us by the Father and himself. His real presence is in the Spirit.

“Spirit to spirit.”

you: Are you saying that Physical = Unspiritual?

me: No. That, God is a living God in us who provides us his true bread, by faith. And by faith that his word is truth.

Jesus said:
"Just as the livng Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’’

“Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.”

Where is he?

He is at the right hand of God, and in my Spirit.

"At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look here is the Christ!’ or, “There he is!’ do not believe it.
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.”

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the LORD of heaven and earth and does NOT live in temples built by hands.

And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, BECAUSE he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places they should live.

God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

FOR in him we live and move and have our being."

Grace and Peace


#17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.